Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2022]

I would fully expect this, I'm looking for the results to contact much of what DF discovered in their One X vs Series S comparison.

 

hmm.. yea this one is tougher to prove. I feel like on Matrix Experience might be the only thing released on Xbox Series consoles that actually takes advantage of these new hardware features. I don't think the launch titles do anything particularly well in using them quite yet.
The hardest part is that if games are based around dx12U featureset, then it won't be able to run on One X by default. Sadly I feel this comparison may never really occur.

 

Unsurprisingly in practice 6TF GCN >> 4TF RDNA2 if we ignore RT and Zen 2 stuff. But that shouldn't be a surprise as we had plenty of benchs already showing it. But I'd still choose XSS cause higher framerate is much more important than a higher resolution.

 

It can't be proven or disproven without the demo which doesn't exist ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Goto post #18. Repeat.

 

Its interesting though that the OneX at similar resolution or just a bit higher would have outperformed the Series S almost always

 

Ofcourse. Though optimizations can be true magic if a studio/developer would really go for it with a potentional One X version of Matrix. It would have to make up its older arch with more raw horse-power. I'd take the XSS versions of any game over the OneX anyday probably, but the gap isnt that big going from the strongest last gen machine to the weakest current gen box as it is to the premium consoles. As you say the CPU and SSD would be the thoughest to overcome, but creative planning would get a surprising result i think. The GPU is still the most important component when it comes to gaming.

 

Would limiting a game to four cores disproportionately free up memory bandwidth for the GPU in XSS? Its big mem bandwidth deficit must be exacerbated by a CPU that’s ~4x* faster than than in the X1X. Didn’t DF’s speculative tests show a (discrete, so no mem contention) 4TF RDNA perform close to a 6TF GCN?

Edit: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...theory-does-a-4tf-next-gen-console-make-sense

* Maybe ~3x, considering 50% higher clocks and guesstimating 2x IPC. I forgot how much higher the X1X’s Jaguars were clocked.

 

I think I’d currently go with a One X but that will probably change within a year or 2. Seems like it would be better if Series S didn't exist TBH.

 

I'm still surprised they didn't match One X GPU performance as a baseline. 6TF with 12GB of memory would have been great.

 

I would take prettier shaders, greater draw, RT, and faster loading of Series S, over XB1X anytime (and I own a XB1X). And S has its place among those gamers who don't necessarily mind 1080/1440p gaming.

 

Sure, but the MSRP would have been $399 instead of $299... and going against a system with more of everything ($399 PS5 DE).

 

That fact isn't lost on me. I'm just surprised they did it.

 

yeah they should of gone with 6tf & 12gb. I think Ive written this before. Theres no way that would of added an extra $100 to the price.
Maybe then they could of marketted it as a 1440p machine (though apparently theres no 1440p TVs)

Just checked the price here in spain is still 269 (Its now been at that price over a month) so they have flexibility with the price
https://www.mediamarkt.es/es/product/_consola-microsoft-xbox-series-s-512-gb-ssd-blanco-1487616.html

 

There must surely have been options for Series S giving up nothing technically to One X (6Tf GPU, 12Gb) whilst still be a chunk cheaper than PS5DE (10Tf, 16Gb, 800Gb SSD).

You still have a smaller APU, less RAM and a smaller SSD and what should still be a much smaller PSU case.

 

The One X and Series S are targeting 2 different markets so I can understand why they went with the more underpowered console. They basically wanted a Game Pass box, as cheap and small as you could get it.

 

I wonder how deliberate the 4TF metric was for MS. The CUs are screaming for a future clock bump, esp when you consider Series as an evolving ecosystem that could see the Series X displaced within 3 years of launch. "Targetting 1440p" was silly without the extra GFLOPS to back it up and I think it wise for devs to really target 1080p with it. Makes for a dense compute/pixel ratio.

 

The cheaper something is the more you have to be careful with costs.
So even though I would have preferred 12GB (with additional bandwidth) I know even a little increase in costs makes a big difference.

Something like a gpu frequency boost could have been viable though. It being totally silent in every situation just isn't necessary. It's so quiet sounds like it's passively cooled.

XO bc is what makes the XSS look bad. The fact that it's locked to 1S profile does it no favours.

I know why people use the tag gamepass box but I personally have mixed feelings with that framing.
It's just as good for someone who doesn't want gamepass, the XSX is just as good for someone that wants gamepass.

 

Absolutely, but what.. three.. four.. CPU generations and two GPU generations separate the APUs, along with 16nm vs 7nm.

I'm leaning towards the RAM differences being the issue, but RAM is cheap so I wonder what a Series S with 12Gb of 168-bit RAM would deliver, and what the cost difference would be.

 

I’d argue they could go with the 12Gb setup, eat the cost and keep the same price but my guess is they wanted to separate S and X series consoles as much as possible to not eat away at Series X sales. Although in hindsight that’s not really a problem since they can barely keep them in stock

 

The 5.2 TF 5500 XT is about as fast as the 6.2 TF RX 580. So isn't it expected that a 4 TF RDNA 2 part will come in slower than a 6 TF GCN one? According to AMD there was only a 1.25X improvement in IPC from GCN to RDNA 1, and any IPC improvements in RDNA 2 were linked to the Infinity Cache, which the consoles lack.